The endless wave of migrants - for which we have utterly failed to prepare -
will unleash extremist politics throughout the Continent

The extraordinary aerial photo of a column of refugees and migrants tramping through the fields of Slovenia may come to symbolise the moment the EU began to fall apart. The irony can be lost on no one: it was in order to prevent such scenes happening again in continental Europe that the alliance was forged in the first place in the late 1950s. Yet here we are more than half a century later facing the prospect of thousands – maybe hundreds of thousands – of displaced people freezing and starving in the grasslands of eastern Europe as winter closes in.

It is hard to comprehend the stupefying naivety of those, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who thought it a good idea to send out an utterly self-serving signal a few weeks ago inviting anyone who could make the journey to head for Europe. This was ostensibly aimed at Syrians who had fled the civil war in their homeland; but the exodus has been swelled by migrants from many other countries looking for a better life – and who can blame them?

"Why would countries forced to take migrants against their wishes agree to let Britain off the hook, even if we are outside the Schengen system?"

Only they are not going to get a better life. Arguably a transit centre in Europe might be preferable to a refugee camp in Jordan or Turkey, though the latter at least has the merit of being close to Syria, where there are finally tentative signs of some political progress being made. But having encouraged people to move, the Europeans are now pulling up the drawbridge because they have found dealing with the influx overwhelming. Where were the preparations? Why were fleets of buses and trains and boats not laid on at the borders of the EU to bring people safely to Germany, which is, after all, where most people are headed?

At an ill-tempered summit in Brussels on Sunday, European leaders belonging to the borderless Schengen area blamed each other for the crisis before finalising a 17-point plan to be foisted upon countries that don’t agree with it. Since the opponents comprise more than a dozen of the 28 member states, the scope for serious disagreement is clear, not least because the process for sharing out migrants was imposed by majority voting. The countries that are in the front-line of this crisis are understandably seething: Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, accused the German chancellor of “moral imperialism”.

This will unleash extremist politics in Europe. In Germany, the anti-immigrant Pegida movement is attracting thousands to its rallies and in France the Front National continues to gain support. Elsewhere, Eurosceptic parties are making inroads. In Portugal, a Syriza-style leftist minority government has taken office opposed to the eurozone’s fiscal rules; and in Poland, the Law and Justice Party is back in power, pledged to oppose any Brussels diktat on migrant quotas. Against this backdrop, which can only darken, Britain has to decide over the next two years whether to remain part of an increasingly unstable organisation.

"The population has grown by eight million since 1980 and another 10 million will be added in the next 25 years. Is it any surprise we have too few houses, schools, hospitals and trains to cope?"

Leaving aside any deal that David Cameron can conjure up to reform Britain’s position in the EU, the advantages of staying in are diminishing rapidly. More to the point, the Prime Minister still seems highly unlikely to get any concessions on the free movement of people within the EU. If anything, the migration crisis has made this less achievable: why would countries forced to take migrants against their wishes agree to let Britain off the hook, even if we are outside the Schengen system? Sooner or later, the million or so new migrants will be allowed to move around Europe and many may want to come here.

In the early stages of this crisis, the rationale ascribed to Germany’s policy was that they need people because of a falling birth rate and dwindling population. Britain, by contrast, is growing rapidly. This will be confirmed by population projections this week for which Whitehall is braced and expecting the worst. These figures are produced to help government departments prepare for the number of children who will need schooling, workers who will require transport and sick and infirm who have to be treated and cared for.

The last projections showed the population – now around 64 million – increasing to more than 70 million within 12 years. Yet during the 1970s, planning was predicated upon a static population. Even as recently as 15 years ago, projections were anticipating that the 64 million we have today would not be achieved until 2031, whereupon it would fall. In fact, the population has grown by eight million since 1980 and another 10 million will be added in the next 25 years. Is it any surprise we have too few houses, schools, hospitals and trains to cope?

Labour politicians were fond of saying they could see no limits to immigration or population growth and it is true that, historically, countries where the population declines tend to stagnate. A high birth rate used to be encouraged because a rising population meant more people available to work, and a bigger economy brought greater wealth. But there must come a point where this is no longer true.

If population growth is predominantly fuelled by immigration, then the dependants of new arrivals will be a net cost until they grow up, get work and pay taxes. However, their parents will in time themselves become recipients of the pensions and other age-related benefits which have become the biggest cost on the welfare system. Even with immigration at unprecedented levels, the ratio of working people to those retired has continued to worsen. And while it is possible to point to great unpopulated tracts in the UK, especially in Scotland, where people could live, population growth has a disproportionate impact in London and the South East, because that is where most end up.

This, then, is the context within which Britain’s policy towards the great European migration crisis must be seen. No government staring at these population figures could possibly do what the anarchist idiots besieging St Pancras station’s Eurostar terminal at the weekend demanded and remove all borders. Indeed, on the continent, the era of open frontiers is drawing to a close amid political acrimony and human misery.